Keeping this dummy thread idea going.
Dummy Thread just so I can keep making comments in the comment section. Twitter-like. Being as inbred troglodytes at twitter banned me from that forum.
You may remember how I said that the Boehm Bawerk principle of the lengthening of the structure of production ought lead us to aspire to cargo transport, and work-in-progress transport, that is basically anti-gravity. That does not fight against gravity. Most food production ought to be permaculture and ought to be local. But there is no way to aspire to fabulous productivity without the manufacturing sector having an highly lengthened structure of production and a massive trading network.
The stone-arched infrastructure can easily support the trains, and fit nicely into the natural background aesthetically.
The stone is more robust then the cars that crashed into it, and in my view its only the road that makes this picture less artistic than it ought to be.
It takes one awhile to think clearly about these matters. Like many big kids before me I was fascinated particularly by the steam train. Hoping that new technology might lead to the containment of heat, such that a steam train burning any organic material might be efficient, I had an emotional commitment to the idea that we need a new age of rail. I’ve gone back and forth with it and came to the idea that; in our 5,000 year infrastructure plan, its canals, tugs, container ships and dirigibles that ought to be emphasised for cargo and work-in-progress transport.
The thing was, because of my audit of physics I became absolutely fascinated by the phase change of water as really the most powerful explosive force in the universe. Every stroke of a steam engine is a power stroke and I was hoping technological change could make it work. I view all massive explosions as proton-repulsion explosions. The biggest explosions known on earth are water phase change explosions in the form of super-volcanoes. And I view all the massive explosions in the universe as water phase change explosions.
But in fact there are two conditions that could make the train fundamentally anti-gravity. So trains can be part of this long-term plan but really only under two conditions, and even then rail ought not be the main part of the plan.
If the road is absolutely dead flat, and the train is suspended this would qualify as anti-gravity.
But so far this technology has been used for fast passenger transport. This is not a major factor in wealth creation.
Manufacturing is an extension of logistics. This is all about getting everything arriving at specific locations in exactly the right sequence. Speed is not really an issue in this story. Very fast trains are impressive but they are not really that important to the problem of manufacturing. Much better would be level tracks everywhere just for the fact of reducing the energy needed to move things around more generally.
Making communist undertakings efficient.
Remembering that this is a 5000 year project; having level roads, including train tracks everywhere, could be multiple use so long as the train speeds were modest. Thinking about it, the magnetic repulsion needed to keep the trains floating would itself burn up a lot of energy so the reality is that this can never be fully anti-gravity. But the canals are for where the land is a little below sea level. And clearly most of a continent is substantially above sea level. So there is a role for 100% level roads all over the place, to foster general energy efficiency, so long as these roads can be made multiple use and so long as communist undertakings of this sort can be made very cost-effective.
Mises showed near the beginning of the 20th Century that pure communism was completely impossible. Thats not going away. But that doesn’t mean that a small yet growing part of the economy cannot be devoted to communist infrastructure undertakings. Such undertakings can grow far more efficient than the private sector, under the following conditions.
Terraces as view from the top of a road.
With a 5000 year time horizon, perfectly flat roads, including rail, could be made multi-use by way of agricultural terraces tapering down on either side. Dry-Stone is more effective for this purpose, at least on most levels, since you want the road to be more porous to water.
To illustrate the way communist undertakings can be made more effective lets take the national broadband network. It was understood decades a head of time that optical fibre was the best way to send huge volumes of data. We got started on it late because of our all or nothing approach to projects and because of the identity crisis that has been handed to infrastructure. Its much like the artificial gender identity debacle. Now infrastructure projects no longer know whether they are Cliff Richard or Judas Priest. Bruce or Caitlyn Jenner. Are they public, private, or cronyist? Clearly the optical fibre network should have been communist. How could we have made the roll-out powerfully cost-effective?
Liquids and gasses, in the presence of gravity, separate out into layers based on molecular weight. Solids present some complexity to the picture. Though they can act a bit like slow-motion liquids in some cases. Generally speaking you expect the solids to arrange themselves getting more dense as you go further down. But there is a lack of mobility which complicates matters. The general principle, with some exceptions, is that gravity determines the direction of the density of materials. If you know which way is up and which way is down the more dense materials will tend to be in the direction of DOWN.
Now complicating this analysis, when it comes to gasses in the atmosphere; there is a layer where gasses commonly found in air are said to be well-mixed. Interestingly this layer is very hard to find out about in detail, thanks to the global warming fraud. Lately they have said that this “homosphere” reaches to about 70 kilometres above sea level. Thats not always been the story. But you cannot get them to analyse for you how the heavier gasses drop off gradually with each few kilometres. They are deliberately hiding the data. So for example, if you ask a global warming fraudster about the drop-off in CO2 parts per million, for each kilometre in altitude you will gain, all you will get is Jews and lock-step leftists looking for a Gotcha moment ….. “Ho ho you must be just about to die through Argon gas suffocation …. Tee hee hee.” All that money spent on the global warming racket has lead to counter-productive results and hiding of the data.
There can be little doubt that the concentration of the heavier gasses systematically reduces as the altitude goes up. If this were not the case we would have that data. Take that into consideration if you are thinking about using ice core data for your past CO2 measurements. Since the ice itself is formed from packed snow, and the snow develops high in the troposphere. Which is why political considerations have lead to a knowledge deficit when it comes to finding out about how the homospheres constituent parts morph in line with altitude.
Above the homosphere they are calling it the heterosphere. The heterosphere is where the gasses line up in accordance to their molecular weight. At least every gas that is still a gas at the appropriate temperatures, and those gasses lighter than well-mixed air. In this regards water vapour isn’t part of the heterosphere. Water vapour is much lighter than air, but at the temperatures of the upper troposphere, all water vapour must form into liquid or solid prior to getting to the altitudes we are talking about. Methane is lighter than well-mixed air. But ultra-violet light will react with methane in order to turn this CH4 into CO2 and H2O …. prior to this methane accumulating its own layer in the heterosphere.
My claim had been that the final gas layers, in these segregated layers of the heterosphere, were not helium than hydrogen. I said that above the layer of hydrogen there ought to be a proton layer, and above that an electron layer. Just lately I found for the first time they are claiming there to be a “protonosphere.” Maybe this claim has been around for a long time but I missed it when I was studying the global warming racket between 2005-2008. Probably the first Van Allen belt will be top-heavy in protons and the second may likely be top-heavy in electrons. Though it can be hard to get information on this sort of thing. And that is not exactly how they are describing and defining this protonosphere.
Lets note in passing the baffling stupidity of mainstream science. Who are always looking at stars and claiming that the universe is mostly hydrogen, and in plasma form at that. The dumb bastards are looking at the outer layers of the stars that they can see and simply assuming that these outer ‘lifting gasses’ are representative of the massive object as a whole. Stupidity of that level is not about a general lack of brain power. It proves the controlled nature of the academy.
Up And Down
We need to know which way is up and which way is down. Which seems like a frivolous idea but its not, because it tells us how materials will be layered. Materials will be layered in the direction as described above once we know which way is up.
Which Way Is Up? Not such a bad song. Not such a bad band. Damn fine-looking women. Not such a stupid question.
The region in the deep earth where the direction of UP and DOWN reverses can be determined by way of locating where the seismic waves bend one way and then the other. The same principle as how light bends when it travels between air and water. I believe the mainstream sees the veering of the seismic waves and yet they refuse to suffer the implications.
Lighter materials are upward and more dense materials are downward, subject to a bunch of caveats already discussed, but more importantly; subject to the determination of which way is up and which way is down.
Under Jan’s own analysis its going too far to call our earth “Hollow” … There are a lot of crazies involved in this ‘hollow earth’ business but Jan’s analysis is solid.
The best analysis in the video is around about the 20-30 minute region. This is where Jan applies the principles of seismology in a logical fashion and shows that the mainstream is evading some possibilities. The rest of the video is mainly talking about how Jan has explored all angles. But the seismic investigation is the really important stuff.
Most other “hollow earth” people are cranks. Brookes Agnew is both impressive and particularly full of shit. I judge him to be an agent of some sort. But Jan’s analysis ought to be taken very seriously. I think Jan Lamprecht’s analysis is path-breaking.
So supposing there is an empty region at the centre of the earth. And this region has a radius of about 760 miles. If you are dead centre of this empty void, every direction from where you are is down and you are weightless. So supposing you journeyed DOWN to the centre of the earth. When you got there you would find yourself at the highest point. But well BEFORE you got to that point, you will have noticed that UP and DOWN had reversed.
At the centre of the earth, gravitational forces are the same in all directions. So for practical purposes there is no gravity. The centre of the earth is the point within the earth, where all gravity cancels. You are at the highest point you can be at, at the centre of the earth. For you every direction is DOWN. Down is in the direction of the earths surface. Isn’t that kind of bizzare? And isn’t it funny that you had to hear this from me? The level of control exercised over science is pretty much total.
The dispute comes at the inner core level. The mainstream thinks this is a solid inner core of iron and nickel. They simply do not have the logic or the data to be making bogus claims of this nature. Since the claim of a nickel and iron core is so ‘out there’, arbitrary, crazy, and unbacked …….. we must therefore assume that this monolithic claim is hiding something the oligarchy don’t want us to know. This is a stupid claim. This claim is in violation of any understanding of epistemology. You cannot keep secrets by way of secrecy. Secrets are kept by way of bogus information injected into the situation to hide the truth.
The dispute comes at the inner core level. The mainstream thinks this is a solid inner core of iron and nickel. But an analysis of gravity tells us that this inner core is where the liquid runs out and the gasses start. The gasses start where the liquid ends. This is the inner atmosphere. The inner atmosphere gets increasingly rarified, until there is purest space at the very centre.
For us right now DOWN is in the direction of the earths centre. Now supposing you are standing on solid ground, at the edge of the void at the centre of the earth? Now UP is towards the earth centre. Down is towards the earths surface. And there is positive gravity, because the material beneath your feet is able to pull on you to a greater degree than all the material at the other end of that void. Well what has happened here? You see there comes a point as you are travelling to the centre of the earth where UP and DOWN are reversed. With the reversal of UP and DOWN comes the reversal of the density of materials. For this reason we know that there is indeed a hollow region at the centre of the earth. We have the data from the seismic waves. Where the mainstream says we have a solid inner core, thats where the hollow part starts as I think I have proven. Lets not have second thoughts about this since the seismic data is there. Plus the seismic data shows where the density of materials reverses since going from higher to lower density affects the way the seismic waves bend.
Where the mainstream has matters correct is the location of where the liquid outer core begins and ends.
Seismic data very decisively tells us where the liquid begins and ends, as represented here by the yellow region. The rest of the model is the usual arbitrary bullshit.
Kids are or used to be marked down for making the claim that “heat rises.” But actually this is perfectly fine shorthand and its certainly valid for liquids and gasses. Where liquids and gasses are concerned, the tendency for most of the thermal energy is to go UP rather than DOWN. So indirectly or directly gravity determines the direction of where most of any extra thermal energy being produced, is likely to flow too.
That the photosphere of our sun is almost 6000 degrees Celsius, has in no way prevented our sun from retaining its gigantic oceans. There are two reasons for this. 1. The refrigeration effect of the phase change of water. One of the most miraculous and puzzling effects in all of science. (You would think this effect was pure magic if you didn’t know better) and 2 …. “Heat rises.” Which means the thermal energy being produced, chiefly between the corona and the photosphere, has to fight every inch to make its way down to the water. To be sure it gets there. Or we wouldn’t have coronal mass ejections and other such violent behaviour. But its tough work, every joule and every inch.
Now see how the suns inner ocean drives the rotation of the suns outer atmosphere in accordance with latitude? The diagram above shows this very clearly. The rotation pattern is due to the inner ocean spinning faster than the outer atmosphere, and the inner ocean being flatter (more oblate) then the sun appears to be at the photosphere. Total proof of an inner ocean since no other solution is possible. This inner, and more oblate oceanic sun, also explains the alleged anomalies in the rotation of Mercury around the sun. Doesn’t really matter what any Jew wants to say about it. Not everything the Jew tells you is the truth.
So in order to suss out where the thermal energy will tend to migrate to you need to know which way is up. As we have seen, when you are at the centre of the earth, everywhere is down. The thermal energy wants to migrate to where you are. Or at least until the gasses run out. Supposing you are on earth? If there is a bonfire burning on a platform above your head, where you are not shielded from the platform itself, you could get very hot. But if you are above the fire, thats where most, but not all, of the thermal energy is headed. This will become important later when we discover that the Sun never lost its oceans. Of course should we want to pull this apart to a greater degree we would split up thermal energy migration into convection, conduction and radiation. But still the generalisation that “heat rises” is good enough in many situations.
Layered atmosphere of the sun.
The same system will apply to the sun as it does to the heterosphere above the earth. On the sun the top of the hydrogen layer is almost 6000 degrees Celsius and the temperatures will drop below that. But any element or molecule that is a gas at the appropriate temperature will have its own layer where it is predominant, in accordance to its molecular weight. Below the hydrogen plasma layer is the hydrogen gas layer. Below that the helium layer and so forth. The temperature drop-off is not known exactly. Although my understanding is that when you can see through the photosphere, because of the sun spots, the sun spots are maybe 1400 degrees cooler than the photosphere. Maybe someone else could be able to work out which gasses were included in the layers beneath the photosphere. But its a tough gig because you need to know what molecule will be a gas at the right temperature and pressure so you would need to know that temperature and pressure.
I don’t know how the aether converts pure random flux into useable energy.
I cannot tell you HOW. I can only tell you WHERE.
Pristine Energy Until Proven Otherwise.
The aether takes pure random flux and transmutes this into energy. Don’t ask me how this is done. If you want to estimate when this capacity first evolved, try a trillion to the power of a trillion years ago as your first starting point. I don’t know how this is done and am not going to presume to delve down into that level of miniaturisation. But once we know that neither energy nor matter is conserved, it follows that energy and matter must be generated somewhere and somehow. After confessing to the reality that I don’t know how its done, in the case of pristine energy, I can at least tell you WHERE this is happening. We have already dealt with one place where pristine energy is being created. This is because we now know that the orbits of two or more major gravitational bodies are energy positive. So pristine energy comes into the universe via orbits. Orbits of two or more bodies as large as our moon or larger.
Charge Separation Indirectly Due To Gravity.
Here we have the other, or the second cause of pristine energy injected into the universe. Once you get that heterospheric pattern you wind up getting the layers; Helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons. Right at the very edge of that lineup you will have charge separation. Once you get charge separation you will have continuous charge buildup. Since the aether is not a very good conductor you then get resistance. With resistance you get the generation of thermal energy. Both capacitance buildup and the consequent heat buildup are examples of new energy injected into the universe. If it isn’t coming from there you would have to ask where it is coming from.
Notice how this version of how things happen explains what we see. What is the mainstream answer to why we have a corona where the temperature gets as high as 2 million degrees and falls in temperature towards the photosphere? A real ‘dog ate my homework story.’ Now what is going on with the photosphere? Well you see gasses don’t conduct electricity very well. But ions do. So the photosphere represents that interaction between the proton layer and the hydrogen layer. The electrical energy is now circulating around and around on the hydrogen layer trying to penetrate into the sun, but only being able to do so gradually. The result is a kind of eternal ball lightning.
The earth has an inner sun. Tiny, but very powerful.
The earths inner sun blazes away, primarily giving off gamma ray light. Gamma rays in a vacuum produces new matter in the form of pair production (an electron and a positron). These pristine particle rain down on all the elements arranged in gaseous bands, since the temperature is hot enough to make every element a gas. The voltage difference, the high electrical pressure, makes fusion in this situation easy and painless. The heavier elements are in the lower gaseous bands. The high pressures involved can force materials downwards (ie towards the earths surface, and towards the pinch point where density is greatest and where up and down reverse.) Heavier elements are forced downward by lighter elements and so are given a kind of ‘head start.’ So where up and down are reversed there is still the possibility of some heavier elements making it to the earths crust, being driven by the lighter ones, often still as gasses or as molten liquids. Were it not a topsy turvy situation like this, all heavy stuff would be deep and lighter stuff would be shallow.
This electrical energy is spread over the entire photosphere of the sun. What do you imagine would happen if the same sort of layering and charge separation could lead to a more focused electrical energy? You would get a dense plasma focus of some sort. The most intense electrical pressure and heat leading to a tiny gamma ray sun. Very exciting stuff right? For that we want to go back to the centre of the earth. We will see that there is a spontaneous generation of a tiny gamma ray sun. Not made of hardly anything at all. Simply a ball permanent gamma ray lightning.
So starting from where the outer liquid core ends we get an “atmosphere” of sorts but it will be many types of elements and compounds in gas form because of the high heat. Eventually they will separate into distinct layers that may approximate the periodic table. But just as in the upper layers of the earth and the sun, the layers will eventually wind up being helium, then hydrogen, then protons then electrons then pure space.
Each layer will trace out the outline of increasingly small spheres. When we get to the proton and electron separation, that will amount to the same sort of charge separation as between the corona and the photosphere. But now the electrical energy will be hyper-focused. Thats why the end result will be a tiny gamma ray sun. As opposed to on the sun, where the result of the charge separation is instead permanent lightning producing light of a sort that approximates “black body” radiation at less than 6000 degrees celsius. The inner sun is much more focused, very small, and much if not most of the light will be gamma radiation.
Gamma radiation through a vacuum is what leads to pair production; the only known type of new matter creation.
Now consider what this mechanism means for the growth of planets? You would need to be quite a large planet to get this process going to any great degree. Once this mechanism starts going it will keep going until the planet becomes a star, then becomes a bigger star, and it won’t stop until the body explodes for some reason or other.
But it will mean that there is a point where the growth of the planet is at its highest proportionately. We must be close to that place now. At 18-22mm radius increase per year, thats really strong growth. Contrast this to the sun.
The sun will be creating vastly more new matter every year than we are. But not so on a proportionate basis. There has to be some sort of diminishing returns to this inner sun new matter creation process. We have some verification of this. NASA says that the orbit of the earth and the sun is increasing in diameter 15cm per year. Only 15cm per year? As we have seen elsewhere orbits of large bodies tend to grow. We have to assume that the orbits grow faster than the bodies themselves. So this implies that the suns growth is quite modest on a proportional level compared to the earths.
NASA only really lets out interesting information early on and by accident.
They have said that measured from the centre of the sun, to the centre of the earth, our orbit is growing 15cm per year. Of course they have no explanation for this and they probably wished they never let this information slip.
Others who investigated these matters have assumed exponential growth in bodies. Because its very clear that the earth hasn’t been growing at anything like this rapid pace for most of its history. But this was never likely to be the case that growth would always be exponential. Because in physics we are talking about mechanisms. And so you expect these mechanisms to hit a sweet spot where its working very well. Then get less and less effective proportionately as the body grows. If I’m right large stars are very ancient. Much older than what the mainstream is saying is the age of the universe.
One more thing to consider. The very centre of the earth will have much higher temperatures than what the mainstream suggests. But since that area is largely a void, since up and down are reversed, and since heat rises, that way the thermal energy is quite well contained.
Maxwell has tracked with great precision the historical growth rate of the earth. As you can see it looks like the planets growth rate is exponential. Though the graph looks to be going straight up thats only because of comparisons with the very feeble growth rates of long ago. Since right now the growth is 22mm in radius per year.
The amount of millimetres radius increase per year will continue to increase. But the PROPORTIONAL yearly increase may be pretty close to its peak already. And an understanding of the inner earth, as I have described in this thread, should tell you why this would be the case.
With regards to the model described in the thread. I want you all to visualise it since it helps explain very easily the record of the earths growth. You see the inner matter creation of the earth only 70 million years ago was weak. Very feeble. And there is a lot of room for improvement. Think of the layers of gasses in the inner core and liquids in the outer core …. gasses and liquids chiefly due to extreme heat. Temperatures far higher than we perceive from the surface since that UP and Down have been reversed to the heat is contained much better than the mainstream could imagine.
Now the gravity where the inner core is quite a bit weaker than the gravity we experience here at the surface. So the charge separation, indirectly due to gravity …. Its got to be a situation wherein this feature has a great deal of “room for improvement” don’t you think?
So you have all these layers capturing much of the periodic table …. but of course with only a 760 mile radius, and feeble gravity, we would not expect such clear differentiation. Then when we get up to the last five layers ….. helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, pure space …… Well with so little gravity and so little space to work with …. the differentiation between the hydrogen, proton, and electrons …… These aren’t going to be cleanly distinct layers in any absolutist sense. But as the planets and stars get bigger, the gravity and the inner voids get larger, then the charge separation will get more distinct, so that the matter creation will become more efficient.
So its very easy to understand why the moons expansion is so feeble. And why the earths expansion was also very feeble not so long ago.
Here is the figures for how the surface area of earth has changed over time. Now note that the surface of the earth increased only 0.31 percent in that ten million years between 170 and 180 million years ago. That is really close to fuck all. Barely fucking nothing. The inner void must have been very small. The indirect charge separation due to gravity must have been very feeble. The last five layers (helium, hydrogen, protons, electrons, space) must have been differentiated only as a slight matter of degree.
Contrast this to how the surface area has increased 5.52 per cent in the last ten million years. Well the last five layers won’t be as distinct and awesome as they could be. The gravity starting from the inner core/outer core boundary is still pretty feeble. But nonetheless we have begun to hit a sweet spot; a pretty functional new matter creation setup, with a powerful yet tiny inner sun blazing away in the gamma … So new matter is getting created apace. So clearly there is much room for improvement but proportionately it will begin to level out and then later start dropping. It won’t continue to be exponential as Maxlow has suggested.
We must always remember that in physics we are talking about quirky proposed MECHANISMS. Not Jew Voodoo principles. So we don’t want to make the mistake of looking at the data and being too quick to suggest that the PRINCIPLE we are divining is a principle of EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. Once we drill down to the MECHANISM, as I have done in this thread, we find that the growth will continue to increase in ABSOLUTE terms, but that this growth will “soon” reach a peak in proportional terms, when the situation is such, that the internal new matter creation “factory” gets as efficient as its ever going to get.
I hope you can visualise, in your minds eye, by way of my model, why this has to be the case.
I think I heard Paul Laviolette suggest that Sagittarius A* was creating the vast majority of new matter in the galaxy. I am not sure it was he who said that. But can you see that by way of my analysis this is unlikely to be the case? The new matter creation factory is likely to be proportionately more efficient in fairly modest sized stars. Actually if we are really talking about PROPORTIONATE efficiency it will be in gas giants, or indeed in rocky planets not so much bigger than our own. In other words the proportionate efficiency will be in very large planets. So I cannot see Sagittarius A* as being the great new matter creation venue. Since the layer differentiation can only get so good. The charge separation will only get so distinct. At some point the inner sun efficiency in new matter creation will reach diminishing returns.
When we look at the fossil record and we compare it to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift, we see a lot of convergent evidence for this geological theory. People who have followed me right from where I threw down the gauntlet, and made my statement of epistemology, before following the implications of that statement, down myriad rabbit holes will say to me … “Slow down there Visigothkhan. Slow down there ” They will say that “………. by your own admission it is convergent evidence that leads to rightful certitude. So you say that there is convergent evidence in support of plate tectonics. And yet you claim that plate tectonics is horseshit. What gives?”
Except where being forced apart by new matter creation, continents are endless contiguous rock. They are locked in place and not about to “drift” anywhere.
No force vectors can ever be drawn in such a way as to show how continents could be drifting around.
This story of continental drift runs convergent with the evidence we derive from the fossil record. But it just so happens that continental drift is impossible. As it is impossible, it cannot be true. One of the only times where relying on convergent evidence alone, leads to the wrong result.
The issue is to do with how far you can expect to get results from applying a force, when the earth you are applying the force against is not infinitely hard. So what happens when you are in Sydney, and pushing your bulldozer against the earth and the earth is made of marshmellow? Do you expect to get an outcome that is noticeable in the marshmellow earth near Gosford? No I don’t think so do you? There is only so far the force can travel if the ground you are pushing against is soft.
But how about if you have a REALLY souped up steam and nuclear powered giant bulldozer and the ground you are pushing against is made of iron? Do you suspect you will get perceivable results in the iron ground of Dubbo? Could you create a subduction zone in Dubbo, with your fantastical bulldozer, if all the earth between Sydney and Dubbo were made of iron? No that is completely ridiculous, and if you could buckle the iron, with a powerful force, it remains the case that all the buckling would be localised, relatively speaking.
Thats the end of the story. Thats a debunking from which this continental drift theory cannot recover from. Let these asshats push two hills apart before trying to jive us with such idiocy as to expect that you can force two continents apart that way.
Of course the culprit is the Jew takeover of science beginning with aether denial. Aether denial, the conservation of matter (in the secular formulation) the conservation of energy (in an atheists setting) … these are all logical impossibilities. But you MUST fucking believe the impossible in all cases or a coterie of Jews will fuck with your career.
Potholer has never got anything right in the world of science. See where he ludicrously suggests that force can be transmitted many thousands of miles. Any attempt to produce force leads to highly localised results. Even if the earth was made of diamond, or titanium, an attempt to produce force would only lead to local buckling.
Check potholers animation 6 minutes and 50 seconds in. He’s representing here, the idea that force can transmitted, all the way from the Pacific ring of fire, to an imaginary subduction zone, somewhere underneath the North American continent. Potholer is an op, and he has changed his animations in an attempt not to be shamed by my criticisms of the stupidity of his implied claims.
So continental drift theory is sent to the fires and the growing earth theory is proven. And thats very fortunate. Because if the earth were not expanding with new matter production … We would be at a loss to figure out where all the matter had come from. It turns out that it is being produced beneath our feet. The existence of matter itself would be a fantastical conundrum if we had no location for its production.
On strictly logical grounds it is matter that must produce more matter. Or if that were not the case, each individual creation event of new matter would be a separate miracle. Only Jew science relies on miracles. In real science we don’t rely on miracles and therefore matter had to be producing new matter and therefore the source of the new matter production had to be beneath our feet. Or at least at the centre of major gravitational bodies.
To understand all the possible forces that could be leading to the building of mountains you need a more realistic view of gravity, then what our covert leaders will allow. Let me explain the Graeme Bird view of gravity, using hot rod racing as an example.
I would expect a hot rod weighing one tonne, to be a few kilos lighter in its acceleration phase. Supposing the hot rod hit a very fast and stable speed? I would expect that ALMOST all of its weight would be restored. Maybe the hot rod would weigh a gram shy of one tonne. Acceleration perpendicular to the direction of gravity should disrupt the aether strongly. High velocity perpendicular to the direction of gravity ought to disrupt the aether just a little bit. This should work for orbits as well.
It will take awhile for you to get your head around my alternative view of gravity. I point the way towards pretty simple stuff and I’m not in any way claiming that it took an original mind to speculate about these sorts of things. I am approaching this as a fellow who thinks that not everything the rabbi tells me is the truth. I’m not approaching the matter from the point of view that I’m deluding myself that Brian and Beverly’s (my parents) DNA was so much better than everyone else’s. Somewhat Worthy DNA for sure, but thats not where I’m coming from. This is a matter closer to those subjects that people worked with to produce the American RICO legislation (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) …. then it is to the ideas that people were working on within the Manhattan project.
I can prove to about a 90% certainty, on purely logical grounds, that gravity is caused by the connections created by the luminiferous aether. Simply on the basis that nature is unlikely to use two sets of connections when one set of connections would do.
Put three mathematicians close together, and they will struggle to solve the three-body problem for planetary orbits. They are using Newtons formulae and assumptions.
Put three planet-sized objects together and they solve the three-body problem just fine. So is dumb matter smarter than a mathematician? No I don’t think so. I think that the three planets aren’t using Newtons formulae or assumptions. Newton is wrong and obviously so. Its time we stopped with the public service thing and actually did the work. But we will not be able to unless we can isolate Jew subversion first.
Flight, and particularly flight in a vacuum is inherently unstable. Forget the THREE body problem. How about the ten billion body orbits problem that the milky way solves each day? However gravity works, and surely it must be dumb gravity, rather than directed by Allah ……. it has an whole set of feedback loops which keep orbits naturally stable, and stops large objects from crashing into each other.
There is no getting around this.
Thinking about the biggest continent … Eurasia shall we say. Eurasia doesn’t sit on the earth flat. Eurasia CURVES around a nearly spherical earth. But consider the situation 200 million years ago? When almost the same continent curved around a MUCH SMALLER planet. So can you see, I think you can, that the curve of Eurasia is much greater on a smaller planet. And while Eurasia is still a wrap-around continent, the fact is its flatter as time goes on. The bigger is the planet the flatter is the continent.
So in the first instance mountains and indeed hills are created by way of the continent, that had been MORE CURVED settling in a way that now allows the continent to be LESS CURVED because of a larger planet.
This is the way that mountains and hills are created. But the title of this thread is “Forces Affecting Mountain Development” so what else are we to talk about?
The Logos personified probably has many projects of his own:
Jew physicists are loading him up with the repetitive grunt-work. Doing what he does requires some focus. To the Jew physicist its okay to expect the saviour to divide his attention with constant micro-adjustments to trillions of orbits in order that the cosmos falls in with Newtons formulae.
The ice distribution in the world today implies that we have gone through a recent pole shift. In science we don’t rely on a giant God to jerk the earth suddenly and then re-establish its former rotation not long after. And even if a God tried to reach out and do so, it would be hard to be able to get the traction to do this in space. The only way for this to happen, practically speaking, is by way of a “close-passing comet” … A comet with a giant nucleus, that gets to be so close it passes between the earth and the moon.
James McCanney pioneered this possibility. Its pretty clear that this happened fairly recently. But in order for this theory to be correct, the former South Pole at sea, had to have gathered a great deal of anti-clockwise momentum, and thereafter run aground and climbed up the side of the Antarctic continent. I just wanted to get that objection out of the way. Because this is indeed what did happen. As the pattern of ancient ice reveals. This would have been a truly awesome thing to watch, and I envy the handful of humans, probably less than 3000 years ago, who got to see this. The pole shift itself was probably just shy of 3200 years ago. 1177 BC by one estimate. But it would have taken the ice associated with the former South Pole, a lot of time to have gathered enough anti-clockwise momentum in order to run aground.
“The flyby anomaly is a discrepancy between current scientific models and the actual increase in speed (i.e. increase in kinetic energy) observed during a planetary flyby by a spacecraft. In multiple cases, spacecraft have been observed to gain greater speed than scientists have predicted and as yet no convincing explanation has been found.”
This situation effortlessly explained by the Graeme Bird view of physics, cosmology and gravity.
When a close-passing comet, gets between us and the moon, what sort of effect will the gravity between the nucleus of that comet, and our earth …. what sort of effect will that have on the ground? This depends on how gravity works independent of heritage formulae. Gravity is a mechanism, and does not goose-step to the tune of the mathematical approximations of yesteryear. Certainly the physical world has no respect whatsoever for Jew Quantum “PRINCIPLES” … Holy Allah and all his celestial concubines!!!!! What could have possessed us to believe that it was okay for these rabbis to substitute Jew fantasy physics principles, for the important hard yards of getting to know the quirks of a mechanism?
In any case I am suggesting that I have reason to believe that the mechanism of gravity has greater local effects than the formulae would assume. I also suggest that denser materials have disproportionately greater gravity production then less dense materials. So I suggest that more dense materials in body A, has a massively greater attraction to the more dense materials in body B, then in all the other permutations going on in the gravity interactions between the two bodies.
So your rocket is pointed at the earth. But you are a long distance from the earth. The gravity of the earth is helping you build speed. Your rocket is pointed almost exactly at the centre of the earth but not quite. So since you are accelerating TOWARD the force of gravity and not moving perpendicular I am not expecting the aether to be prevented from reconstituting itself much.
But when you get closer you end up moving very fast to the side of the planet. Plus its at this point you would accelerate, firing your rockets …. and since the acceleration is perpendicular to the planet ………….. gravity reduces a great deal. Hence the energy anomaly.
So you are accelerating away with the planet at your side which reduces gravity. But you accelerated IN with the planet in front so that was neutral to gravity. So you get a boost.
The energy anomaly breaks the law of the conservation of energy. But thats okay because that law was always stupid.
The possibility that gravity worked disproportionately more strongly between super-dense materials was presented to me in primary school. I think it was when I was seven. But I may have been as old as ten. But what I do know, is that I found the anecdote that contained this potential implication, very curious, and actually quite disturbing. The story has bothered me ever since.
Probably you think I’m exaggerating that the hot rod will be a few kilos lighter when accelerating. Well maybe so. There has to be a great many variables that go into how much weight reduction is caused by acceleration. It will depend a lot on the materials used.
But there can be no doubt that acceleration leads to weight reduction or the old mans wrist would break. And this reality needs to be part of the sane study of planetary orbits.
Gravity meters are used for flyovers in the desert. They are used to try and figure out where there are ore deposits. The commercial uses of detecting gravity ought to be creating friction with the Newtonian system. No doubt there are covert research projects that have figured out in great detail how gravity works. But for public consumption we are still getting that hippy Newton and that conman Einstein.
“In a demonstration of the sensitivity of the superconducting gravimeter, Virtanen (2006), describes how an instrument at Metsähovi, Finland, detected the gradual increase in surface gravity as workmen cleared snow from its laboratory roof.”
In the legend the plumb bob holds steady towards Mount Everest
This tall story has disturbed me over many decades. Think through how that even COULD be possible?
We always talk about gravity as if it were to do with the centre of the earth calculations. But we would have an whole new set of calculations to deal with if we were thinking of it as a nucleon-to-nucleon phenomenon. On that level we may find out that the drop-off of gravitational attraction is closer to the 3rd power rather than to the 2nd. No doubt all this work has been done, it just does not appear to be public.
I suspect that more dense objects will exert a disproportionate gravitational pull. Its hard to imagine aerial prospecting being practical were this not the case.
When I was in primary school we would get these old Jesus interpreters showing up in class to help us with our spiritual development. In an analogy to do with sin, this old fellow started talking about plumb-bobs. He suggested that sometime in his youth he was working overseas, and he had a plumb-bob that swung and held steady toward Mount Everest. Sounds like a tall story to me and I may have got it wrong after all this time. But supposing thats true? We will work through a cascade of thinking based on the possibility that the story may be true. Although in the 45 odd years since that time I’ve never heard any such story repeated.
The uppermost leadership was always evil. The empire was never acceptable.
But the middle management were probably well-meaning human beings. The people who worked at the lower levels of the hierarchy, often at least tried to be helpful. The top leadership was evil, but the Christian culture, was in many ways benevolent. And not everything the old man told me was wrong.
“…..the mass of Mount Everest is so great that the weighted bob at the end of the plumb line on the theodolite, a surveyor’s instrument, is pulled toward the mountain, distorting the measurement……”
Maybe the amateur bible instructor wasn’t talking nonsense. In my audit of modern cosmology and physics, I take the attitude of a judge. And a hanging judge at that. So while recognising that I could have the wrong end of the stick here, that is not my guiding assumption. I don’t doubt myself as my leading methodology. If its a plumb bob that is your only tool, how is it that you know its off-centre in the first place? Its gravity that tells us which way is up. So how would you so much as notice that your plumb bob was out of line?
The bible instructor filled the children’s minds with troubling memes and stories
His befuddling plumb bob and Everest story was his crowning achievement.
So I say this implies a couple of things. Newtons formulae (to the extent that they are pretty much correct within a certain range) ought be considered to be calculating, not gravity, but an emergent property of gravity.
1. The inverse square law ought not apply at the local level.
2. Local gravity ought to disproportionately attract the more dense material (the plumb bob is made of lead).
3. The story seems to suggest that the density of materials within the mountain may be on average higher than it is typically below the ground. Which is counter-intuitive, since then you would expect the mountain to want to sink back down into the earth.
You can see how the story by the ancient traveller has troubled me. It may have been as early as 1973 and the fellow may have been as old as 70. That could mean he was born as early as 2003 and therefore a creature of the British Empire. So he could have been to El Dorado, Shangri La, Shamballah and that lonely road where two moons rise, and he comes back to our country town to benefit us children with all his knowledge. For it is the case that the Empire sent these fellows on wondrous journeys, and decades later they would show up in ones primary school class with a great many tall stories.
But this plumb bob story was the most troubling yarn of all. It does not seem to make any sense. Its like what the lay preachers would tell us about the father, the son and the holy spirit. How can they be one and three at the same time? And what exactly is the holy spirit in any case? These spiritually deep, and well-travelled types, start filling up the kids heads, with troubling information. But the old man really outdid himself, with his plumb-bob and Everest story.
You have your Phobos-like space station to help you with mining operations in the asteroid belt. You build a 20 metre deep tungsten floor. Forget what Newton came up with. Do we have the experimental work, completed and public, to say whether this deep floor could produce disproportionate gravity?
I don’t think we do. I think gravity has become a state secret. You keep a secret mainly by filling the air with a smokescreen of ludicrous bullshit.
Lets drill down on this plumb-bob business before I explain the two other causes of mountain building. Which way is up? Which way is down? It is gravity that tells us which way is up and which way is down. When we say that our plumb-bob is “leaning” (Neither “leaning” nor “swinging” is the right word here) is an admission that the direction of up is different for the plumb-bob then it is for you. I always believe in drilling down inductively to the maximum degree even when all the facts are not to hand. That way when the new data arrives, you can immediately see the implications inherent in this data. Data is not evidence but because you have done the hard yards you are quickly able to transmute this data, into usable evidence, by a process of human reason.
No group of three or more gentiles could possibly keep a secret by relying on human discipline expressed jointly and severally. Rather, as any good dynast or Jew would know, secrets can only be kept by way of hiding that secret in an explosion of ludicrous multi-layered bullshitartistry. Reverse engineering modern physics reveals that it is the true nature of gravity they are trying to hide, with their garish nonsense. Although there also contains a strong streak of general demoralisation in their ideology. And they want to mislead us about fusion as well.
Song and dance man comparable to Al Jolson.
But here we have the worry that some Jew might laugh at us, when people on the ground near Mount Everest have more understanding of how things work near Mount Everest? I say so what? Why would I give a fuck about some inbred troglodyte being able to come up with a “gotcha” moment? Its not like that would be a critique from anyone I could possibly respect.
Test vehicle unsuited for long distance flight. Where are you going to fit the washing machine? Let alone the cows.
It took a great deal of blowing smoke to associate this type of flight with aliens. They are screwing with us.
So if “up” and “down” are slightly different for the man holding the plumb-bob, then it is for the plum-bob, this suggests to me everything I’ve already said about gravity. More localised, disproportionate at the local level, with the attraction between denser materials. So I say the mountain is made of more dense material than what is immediately beneath our feet, even as the plumb bob is made of more dense materials, than the man holding it.
As I said before this is a deeply troubling hypothesis. Since if the mountain is more dense, than the ground that surrounds it, why does it not simply sink into the ground?
The Max Plank institute for gravitational physics. Busy NOT studying gravity. Think of how I would want gravity studied and then check their list of publications. Appropriately named the Albert Einstein Institute. Complete bullshit. Talking always about gravity waves. Both gravity and light are a function of aether. Waves along the aether is light. So where do gravity waves fit into this picture? Just constant lies.
The Physics equivalent of a Jew terrorist false flag attack.
Brian Greene had his well tailored casual gear and his expensive animation backed spiel, edited, and in-the-can …… prior to the phoney announcement.
The material beneath the deep ocean ought to be more dense on average than the landed materials. As suggested before, the normal way of things is for the heavier materials to sink below the lighter ones. In this analysis we have the troubling fact that the nature of the materials of the nucleus of comets is an oligarchical secret. The oligarchy keeps bullshitting us, as though we were Soviet peasants, that the nucleus of a comet is made of dirty ice. This is all lies. I will assume that there is some selective bias that leads to a tendency for the nucleus of comets to be made of unusually dense materials. That the comet pulls a lot of debris (rocks, water vapour, hydrocarbons) behind it is one selective bias … The nucleus is the clear gravitational leader in this story. I’m going to assume that there is more going on than just that, and that the nucleus of comets tends to be made of unusually dense rock. I have some reason to believe this, which I won’t get into here.
Now supposing a close-passing comet, with a nucleus bigger than Mars, and smaller than Venus, gets between us and the Moon? With gravitational forces that are more localised than what you would think, where dense-to-dense material produces a disproportionate attraction …. think what this could mean as a real-gravity-wave (as opposed to a Brian Greene bullshit gravity wave) passes over the earths surface? Suddenly you could have super-dense rocks under the ocean being pulled up in a mountain chain right? Yes you could yes you could.
I mean where do you think we get all that Himalayan salt from right? From the fucking Himalayas is where we get that salt. This implies that a lot of salt water has been brought up with the mountain chain. I think that implication follows rather directly. But we need not rely on the rocks being underneath the sea to be pulled up abruptly. It could be stuff on land directly underneath the comet nucleus that serendipitously was more dense than most of the earth around it.
Sounds a lot more recent and more exciting than standard geology right? Labouring under Jew/oligarchical restrictions puts the consensus view entirely out of whack. One wonders what the ancients said about the mountains in their various writings.
There is certainly reason to be on the look-out for unexpected indications that many mountain ranges may be a great deal younger than what we are being told.
The mountains, lonesome, cold and very very heavy, forever long to sink back into the warm embrace, of the ground beneath.
But once forced above the ground, the vigilante Moon-God, will never let the mountains sink back home. Orbits of two or more major bodies are energy-positive. They are sources of pristine energy into the universe. The moon has more than enough energy to overmatch the earths growing gravitational strength, to raise the tides, and keep the lonely cold mountains exposed … Even after that she has enough juice left over to accelerate away from the earth. No decrease in the sidereal rotation speed of the earth, at the equator, has ever been measured. The days get longer, but that is not the same thing.
Causes of mountaining …… So far ………..
So thats growing earth settling, and close passing comet forcing covered. I have covered these two sources of mountain-building.
But what keeps the super-dense mountains up and growing? What stops them from sinking down into the less dense ground around them? The answer is the moon. Every day the moon sends a real-gravity-wave (Not Brian Greene bullshit gravity wave) across the earth. This raises the ocean water several metres higher. I think its about 7 metres isn’t it? But it raises the earth higher as well. It rolls over the earth and raises up the earth maybe an inch or a centimetre higher and I would be very interested in knowing the exact amount. But as this wave rolls along, when it hits a super-dense mountain thats sitting there it will exert a very powerful upward force. So along with growing earth settling and regular tidal force of the moon, these mountains, more dense than the sub-surface ground around them, will continue to grow. If we had a reliable way of knowing when we got all these mountains, we might have a way of figuring out when it was that we captured our moon. Since without the moon the mountains would tend to erode and settle.
The anti-gravity effect of forcing two magnets together and then dropping the resulting weight ….. Now notice how this important finding has been ignored? The moratorium on developing a better understanding of gravity is very powerful. Gravity is definitely an oligarchical secret.
Meanwhile the Max Plank institute for gravitational research does everything it can not to actually investigate gravity. This is a Jew thing.